(Editors note: I don't know why I am doing this. I just... can't stop. Perhaps Ruthie was wrong: if the blogging business were all purely performative, surely I would not post stuff that was so obviously uninteresting and long. If anyone is interested (and you aren't, but that is ok) the first two parts of this story are in the archives somewhere.)
I stared at the phone and let my arms dangle limp. I pretended that I physically could not lift them; that my body was battling against my mind; that will alone was insufficient to impel my hands to their duty. I knew that I could reach out at any time, but still there was some doubt. I was stunned at my own immobility. Stubbornness has a certain inertia, and I was powerless to break it. I stared at the phone, and imagined that I had suffered a stroke. I imagined that I could not as much as turn my head; someone would eventually find me, catatonic and helpless, staring at the phone, my mouth open slightly, my eyes frozen open. It was not the first time I had been enfeebled by my own imagination.
When was I young and I loved to read the stories of Drama in Real Life out of Reader’s Digest. I was particularly fond of the story of a mountaineer who had suffered some horrific accident, and crawled, both legs broken, some 19 miles to civilization. I read it again and again, with an innocent and obscene delight. I had no frame of reference with which to make sense of nineteen miles, and even less for the pain of two broken legs, but it did not stop me from putting myself in his shoes. One day, on the way home from school, I pretended that my leg was broken. I dragged it pitifully behind me, wincing, even collapsing when I accidentally put my weight on it. I crawled through a parking lot on my stomach, without shame. I was very young. I staggered, and fell again, and lay on the ground, eyes screwed shut in agony, holding my broken leg, hoping for rescue or death. I must have pretended compellingly: a car stopped, and a man asked if I was ok. I was very embarrassed – it is embarrassing just to remember. I could not admit to the helpful stranger the reality of my situation, but neither could I let him take me to the hospital. I slowly rose, grimacing, then bravely shook my head, refusing his help, and staggered away with what I hope resembled proud courage. When I was out of sight, I abandoned my limp; the attempted rescue had ruined the fantasy. I knew for certain that I was not a wounded alpinist; I was an eight year old with two perfectly good legs and some sort of mental malady.
I could pick up the phone, and I knew I could, but I didn’t want to, so I continued to stare at it. It was sitting inches away from me. I had the phone number in my hand. No further preparations could be made. I reached out and picked up the phone, but pressed my finger over the button so that the phone would not know the difference. Suddenly the phone jangled to life in my hand. I answered it, and immediately wished I hadn’t. Of course it was her, calling to check up on me. I told her that I hadn’t called yet, and reminded her that because the cat was dead, it was not really a time sensitive issue. She sat silent at other end of the line, and I could as much as see her face. I closed my eyes, but it did no good. “I’m going to call,” I promised. “It just hadn’t crossed my mind, that’s all. Look, I’ll call right now, ok?” She nodded gravely. I hung up the phone, exhaled, and dialled quickly, as if any intervening time might break my resolve. The phone rang three times, and I realized that I hadn’t decided what to say if the machine picked up. Answering machines panic me, I think because the permanence of the message. If the answering machine…
“Hello?” Someone had picked up. She sounded like my mother. I wondered if I might know her kids. At least I didn’t have to worry about the answering machine.
“Yes, hello,” I said. “Sorry to bother you, but I saw your sign… about the cat.” I hoped that she would step in, contribute something, at least to let me know that I had called the right number, to let me know that she was listening, but she remained silent. “I think… I found a cat, I guess, and it is… Well, I found a dead cat, in the empty lot. I suppose, I thought that it might be…” This was incredibly difficult. Why wasn’t she saying anything? “I thought you would like to know.”
“Oh,” she said, eventually, but it was not a response to my news. It was as if she just remembered the proper protocol of a phone conversation. “I did… I didn’t think that she was coming back, I suppose, it has been three weeks. Still I do appreciate the call. Thank you.” She paused again. I had nothing left to say. “The poster did promise a reward, didn’t it?” she said.
“I wasn’t going to mention it unless you did,” I said cheerfully, and immediately regretted the words. I wished I could assure her that a reward was the furthest thing from my mind. I had called out of courtesy, and I couldn’t imagine a reward that would make this phone call worthwhile. In order to collect a reward, I would have to meet this woman. Our only commonality was her dead cat.
“Well, ok. My husband owns the Turbo station. Why don’t you drop in tomorrow afternoon? I’d like you to point out the place where you found her, so at least we can give her a Christian burial.” She chuckled.
“Yeah, that’s no problem. I’ll look forward to it.” I’ll look forward to it? What was wrong with me? What was wrong with me? “I’ll see you tomorrow afternoon.”
“Right, see you then.” She hung up the phone. I remembered my promise to call back with a recap, but I’d had enough of the phone, and it could wait. I walked out of the room, shaking my head and smiling. “I’ll look forward to it,” I thought angrily. “I’ll look forward to it.”
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Saturday, January 14, 2006
That's why they play the game
I decided that I was going to pick the winners in the football games because I wanted everyone to know that I was a super-genius. I learned a valuable lesson: if you want to gloat about being a super-genius, it is wise to first verify that you are a super-genius.
I have watched many football games, and I have read columns by learned football scholars, and I have strong opinions about which techniques will lead to success, and about the relative importance of cheerleaders. With football forecasts as with dating advice, it is wise to consider the past record of the source before you wager based upon their counsel. Last week, my prognostications (prognostication is a fun word) were twice correct, and twice incorrect. (It would be impolite to discuss my rate of success in other speculative endeavours; instead let me say that you are far better off with my football advice.) With that in mind, let’s get to the picks (home team in capitals).
(Oh, and no one explained this to me, and I do not want you to be similarly benighted. The game is given a ‘line’ by oddsmakers – the oddsmakers estimate who they think is going to win the game, and by how many points. In the case of the Seattle-Washington game, Seattle is heavily favoured to win. In order to give people some motivation to wager on Washington, the oddsmakers say that it will not count as a win for Seattle unless they beat Washington by 10 points or more. It’s like when I play basketball against Daytona Splendor – we usually play to ten and I spot him six. For gambling purposes, Seattle is spotting Washington a 9 point lead. If, as in the case of the New England game, the line is 3, and the Patriots lose by exactly 3 points, the bet is declared a ‘push’ – no one wins and no one loses.)
SEATTLE (-9.5) over Washington – About the only interesting angle in this game is that Seattle is in Washington, but this is a road game for the Redskins, so we can also say that Washington is in Seattle. You can go ahead and read that a couple of times.
Game Note: Sometimes, for vanity or intimidation, a player’s profile will “gild the lily” as they say. “The program lists him at 220,” the announcer might say, "but he looks closer to 250 to me, and I’ll tell you, he hits like he weighs 280!” The program lists Mark Brunell as 35 years old, but he looks closer to 50 to me, and he runs like a man who has misplaced his wheelchair.
Game Note 2: Shawn Springs (who was ejected last week after spitting on another player) will be permitted to play. There were fears that his criminal trial for a weapons violation (specifically, pointing a loaded gun at someone during an altercation; he was charged with “assault with a weapon and simple battery.”) might interfere with the game, but the courts granted a continuance. I think we can all agree that justice was served, and that Mr. Shawn Springs is a class act.
INDY (-9.5) over Pittsburgh – I really don’t like Peyton Manning. I love it when he loses. It is not going to happen this week. Happily, it is going to happen next week.
New England (+3) over DENVER – If there was a word that meant the opposite of confident (disconfident? unconfident?) I would use it to describe this game. My heart tells me that the Patriots are a slightly better team, but my heart also recommended making an emotional investment in Katie Holmes (Katie, if you’re reading this, we can work it out. I don’t care about What’s His Name…). Ultimately, the choice came down to Jake “the Snake” Plummer or Tom Brady, and I am reversing my long-standing policy of “back the quarterback who looks most like hobo” and taking the three-time champs on the road.
CHICAGO (-3) over Carolina – Employing a complicated statistical analysis, I have determined that in the second round of the playoffs home teams are the prohibitive favourites (home teams are 49-11 in the second round since 1990). The Bears are the home team. They have the inexperienced quarterback, the rookie kicker, and the Panthers looked good destroying Eli Manning, but how good to have to be to beat a Manning in the playoffs? (I thought it was funny when the announcers were predicting that Eli would bounce back, reminding us that big brother lost his first playoff game too. Which would be encouraging, if Peyton had blossomed into a proven playoff performer. But he has blossomed into a full-fledged suck, and that makes me very happy, every year. And will make me happy again. Not this week; next week.) Anyway, I think that the Bears will win. But last week I was wrong. Twice.
I have watched many football games, and I have read columns by learned football scholars, and I have strong opinions about which techniques will lead to success, and about the relative importance of cheerleaders. With football forecasts as with dating advice, it is wise to consider the past record of the source before you wager based upon their counsel. Last week, my prognostications (prognostication is a fun word) were twice correct, and twice incorrect. (It would be impolite to discuss my rate of success in other speculative endeavours; instead let me say that you are far better off with my football advice.) With that in mind, let’s get to the picks (home team in capitals).
(Oh, and no one explained this to me, and I do not want you to be similarly benighted. The game is given a ‘line’ by oddsmakers – the oddsmakers estimate who they think is going to win the game, and by how many points. In the case of the Seattle-Washington game, Seattle is heavily favoured to win. In order to give people some motivation to wager on Washington, the oddsmakers say that it will not count as a win for Seattle unless they beat Washington by 10 points or more. It’s like when I play basketball against Daytona Splendor – we usually play to ten and I spot him six. For gambling purposes, Seattle is spotting Washington a 9 point lead. If, as in the case of the New England game, the line is 3, and the Patriots lose by exactly 3 points, the bet is declared a ‘push’ – no one wins and no one loses.)
SEATTLE (-9.5) over Washington – About the only interesting angle in this game is that Seattle is in Washington, but this is a road game for the Redskins, so we can also say that Washington is in Seattle. You can go ahead and read that a couple of times.
Game Note: Sometimes, for vanity or intimidation, a player’s profile will “gild the lily” as they say. “The program lists him at 220,” the announcer might say, "but he looks closer to 250 to me, and I’ll tell you, he hits like he weighs 280!” The program lists Mark Brunell as 35 years old, but he looks closer to 50 to me, and he runs like a man who has misplaced his wheelchair.
Game Note 2: Shawn Springs (who was ejected last week after spitting on another player) will be permitted to play. There were fears that his criminal trial for a weapons violation (specifically, pointing a loaded gun at someone during an altercation; he was charged with “assault with a weapon and simple battery.”) might interfere with the game, but the courts granted a continuance. I think we can all agree that justice was served, and that Mr. Shawn Springs is a class act.
INDY (-9.5) over Pittsburgh – I really don’t like Peyton Manning. I love it when he loses. It is not going to happen this week. Happily, it is going to happen next week.
New England (+3) over DENVER – If there was a word that meant the opposite of confident (disconfident? unconfident?) I would use it to describe this game. My heart tells me that the Patriots are a slightly better team, but my heart also recommended making an emotional investment in Katie Holmes (Katie, if you’re reading this, we can work it out. I don’t care about What’s His Name…). Ultimately, the choice came down to Jake “the Snake” Plummer or Tom Brady, and I am reversing my long-standing policy of “back the quarterback who looks most like hobo” and taking the three-time champs on the road.
CHICAGO (-3) over Carolina – Employing a complicated statistical analysis, I have determined that in the second round of the playoffs home teams are the prohibitive favourites (home teams are 49-11 in the second round since 1990). The Bears are the home team. They have the inexperienced quarterback, the rookie kicker, and the Panthers looked good destroying Eli Manning, but how good to have to be to beat a Manning in the playoffs? (I thought it was funny when the announcers were predicting that Eli would bounce back, reminding us that big brother lost his first playoff game too. Which would be encouraging, if Peyton had blossomed into a proven playoff performer. But he has blossomed into a full-fledged suck, and that makes me very happy, every year. And will make me happy again. Not this week; next week.) Anyway, I think that the Bears will win. But last week I was wrong. Twice.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Problem of Pain... more, and still more
In the West, the Christian story is so ingrained that when we talk about God we are (almost without exception) talking about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Bible, the God that you and I worship in the person of Christ. The problem of evil does not trouble the Greeks, for instance, because their pantheon were much more mutable, much less dependably gracious, and much less powerful than the God of the Bible. For the Greeks, the problem of evil was pretty much, a “Yeah, so?” kind of problem, because they did not believe that any one God was all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing. For them, the cosmos were filled with deities, each one having a slightly different agenda. Sometimes these gods co-operated with each other and with man, and sometimes they were more pissy. A drought killed thousands; “God did it,” was an explanation that fit perfectly with their theology – killing thousands of people was the sort of thing a god might do. Thus the existence of the Greek pantheon is not contradicted by the existence of evil – far from it! In fact, random evil reinforces a belief in their god, for “If god does not exist, then who killed all those people with the lightening bolt?” For Christians, who worship a God who is One, no competing deity can be blamed. The Greeks could have said, “Well, obviously, this is the work of god A. God B would not do something like this. Damn you, god A!” The God of the Bible is alone sovereign: he is jealous; he demands all praise; he alone bears the blame.
The point of this is to point out, from a different perspective, that the existence of God is not militated against by the existence of evil. One very specific construal of God is disallowed by a very specific method of inquiry – the question we face as human reasoners is “Is the God that is disallowed the God I worship?” Put another way, “Is Christian theology robust enough to deal with the existence of evil?” To this question, my answer is an unabashed “Yes.”
It is would love to point out all the allowances that the scriptural account gives for evil, but I will just touch on a few pertinent points:
a) Humans are responsible for much of the evil that is present in the world. God gave humanity the freedom to choose, we chose badly, and continue to choose badly, and as a result we suffer. Human choices are the cause of all suffering – the fall of man was, according to the Bible, led directly to our ongoing struggle against nature, and to all kinds of suffering. This leads us unavoidably to question why God allowed us the freedom to choose. Once again, I am forced to shrug. I do not know why God made puppies, or sunsets, and I do not know why God so values freedom. The Bible hints at some reasons, but is most clear in its promise that we know the mind of God only when God reveals his mind to us. To pinch a phrase from Augustine, “We are talking about God. What wonder is it that you do not understand? If you do understand, then it is not God.”
b) This suffering, this whole world, is temporary. According to Christian eschatology, God has made provision for an end to suffering and evil. This is slender comfort when one is actually suffering, but pain is not the end. There is hope; things will get better.
c) This suffering is purposeful. It is purposeful for the development of character, and perhaps more importantly, it is purposed to allow for God’s demonstration of love in this: “ that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Christ could not have died if there were not death, and he could not have died for us when we were sinners if there was not sin. He could not have demonstrated the depth of his love for us without allowing us to be distant from him. Recall the story of the father who ran down to his prodigal son. God could not have come to us “while we were still a long way off” if we had been constantly at his side. I think it is telling that, in that story, the son who stayed behind ended up bitter and angry. He had not seen the depth of his father’s love because he had not been far off. As Christ said Simon in response to the woman who washed Christ’s feet with her hair, “Who has been forgiven much loves much.” Suffering, it seems, serves ultimate purpose: it teaches us about love.
Surely the universe could have been constructed in another way; surely we could have been instructed in a less costly way. Perhaps it is true. But it is also possible that God is constrained to act in this way, that what we call love is a feature of God, and he could not imbue his universe with his character (love) without making it possible for us to suffer loss. Perhaps this is not the best of all possible worlds, but it is perhaps the most God-like of all possible worlds. The truth or falsity of this claim, it seems to me, is not important, however.
The point of this is to point out, from a different perspective, that the existence of God is not militated against by the existence of evil. One very specific construal of God is disallowed by a very specific method of inquiry – the question we face as human reasoners is “Is the God that is disallowed the God I worship?” Put another way, “Is Christian theology robust enough to deal with the existence of evil?” To this question, my answer is an unabashed “Yes.”
It is would love to point out all the allowances that the scriptural account gives for evil, but I will just touch on a few pertinent points:
a) Humans are responsible for much of the evil that is present in the world. God gave humanity the freedom to choose, we chose badly, and continue to choose badly, and as a result we suffer. Human choices are the cause of all suffering – the fall of man was, according to the Bible, led directly to our ongoing struggle against nature, and to all kinds of suffering. This leads us unavoidably to question why God allowed us the freedom to choose. Once again, I am forced to shrug. I do not know why God made puppies, or sunsets, and I do not know why God so values freedom. The Bible hints at some reasons, but is most clear in its promise that we know the mind of God only when God reveals his mind to us. To pinch a phrase from Augustine, “We are talking about God. What wonder is it that you do not understand? If you do understand, then it is not God.”
b) This suffering, this whole world, is temporary. According to Christian eschatology, God has made provision for an end to suffering and evil. This is slender comfort when one is actually suffering, but pain is not the end. There is hope; things will get better.
c) This suffering is purposeful. It is purposeful for the development of character, and perhaps more importantly, it is purposed to allow for God’s demonstration of love in this: “ that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Christ could not have died if there were not death, and he could not have died for us when we were sinners if there was not sin. He could not have demonstrated the depth of his love for us without allowing us to be distant from him. Recall the story of the father who ran down to his prodigal son. God could not have come to us “while we were still a long way off” if we had been constantly at his side. I think it is telling that, in that story, the son who stayed behind ended up bitter and angry. He had not seen the depth of his father’s love because he had not been far off. As Christ said Simon in response to the woman who washed Christ’s feet with her hair, “Who has been forgiven much loves much.” Suffering, it seems, serves ultimate purpose: it teaches us about love.
Surely the universe could have been constructed in another way; surely we could have been instructed in a less costly way. Perhaps it is true. But it is also possible that God is constrained to act in this way, that what we call love is a feature of God, and he could not imbue his universe with his character (love) without making it possible for us to suffer loss. Perhaps this is not the best of all possible worlds, but it is perhaps the most God-like of all possible worlds. The truth or falsity of this claim, it seems to me, is not important, however.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
NFL playoffs
The NFL playoffs begin this weekend, and no one really cares. We live in Canada, and we love football, but we love Canadian rules. We largely do not care about the watered-down, slow game that, over the objections of the rest of the world, the Yanks insist on calling football (you have to give it to the Americans, they are really good at doing things over the objections of the rest of the world). We love the wacky rules, we love the wacky plays, the fumbled interception that is recovered, fumbled again, kicked into the endzone, and then kicked back out. As befits our great nation’s heritage of free land, the field is bigger. As befits our socialist leanings, the game is not over until the last whistle; there is always a chance that the underdog can come back. (I love hearing the announcer say “All they need is a touchdown, a two point convert, a recovered onside kick, and field goal.” And they are serious!) Also, in the CFL the uprights are at the front of the endzone instead of the back, so there is always a chance that someone is going to run into them.
I have a confession to make, a confession that is too shameful to speak anywhere but into the anonymity of the Internet: I like American football better. I have for some time now. I remember when it began. I was watching the St. Louis Rams in around 1999. Kurt Warner dropped back to pass, but several very large gentleman, intent on doing him harm, rushed toward him. Sensibly, he ran away toward the right sideline. As he ran to his right, he threw the ball (across his body, against his momentum) toward the left corner of the endzone. The ball travelled sixty yards in the air, and came down in the arms of a receiver. The receiver was ‘double covered’ (that is, two highly skilled players were being paid vast sums of money to prevent the catch) but the ball went over the head of the short cover man, and under the arms of the deep man. The receiver caught the ball without breaking stride, and stepped across the goal line for a touchdown.
Of course, it is impossible to recreate the drama of this play in written prose. I just want to stress, the quarterback was running to his right, and threw to his leftt. The ball was thrown at a moving target, a space about the size of a basketball hoop, sixty yards away. (Sixty yards is further than most athletes can kick a football.) I had seen a lot of football. I had never seen anything like that play before.
That moment was a reinforcement of an obvious truth that had lurked for years in the recesses of my mind: the players in the NFL are better. They are faster, they are stronger, they make better decisions. The athletes in the CFL are very good, but they are not good enough to play in the NFL; that is why they play in the CFL. If you want to see someone run into the uprights, or catch an interception after the ball bounced off of the intended receiver’s helmet, the CFL is your game. If you want to watch the best athletes play football at its highest level, you need to watch the NFL. If you want to watch almost inhuman feats of athleticism by top tier American athletes, you will enjoy the NFL. If you want to watch second tier American athletes and a Canadian place kicker, the CFL is a perfect fit.
Some will protest, “But the NFL game is too slow! They run the ball too much!” In the CFL, teams are given only three downs to gain the ten yards needed for a first down. In the NFL, teams are given four downs. It is easy to see that a slow, plodding offense will be more successful in the NFL than in the CFL. What people who make this argument seem to forget is that in the CFL, the defense has to line up a yard away from the line of scrimmage. In the NFL, to gain a yard, you need to run through the defense. In the CFL, you get a whole yard of empty space to gather momentum, so running against a CFL defense is much easier. Because the defense has to line up a yard away from the ball, the offense has the privelege of an uncontested yard on every down. If you take those three yards away, the CFL team has to gain 7 contested yards over the course of three downs, where the NFL team has to gain 10 contested yards over the course of four downs – on average, the CFL game favours a slow, plodding offense!
The neutral zone is most obvious in short yardage situations. In the CFL, when a team faces third down with a yard to go, they will always go for it, and almost always get it: there is no one to run through to get the requiste yards, so all you have to do is not fall over and you are going to get your first down. In the NFL, to gain a yard you have to run through the defense, so in every fourth down situation, every goal-line stand, there is a chance that your team will be unsuccessful. In the recent NFL game between the New York Giants and the Oakland Raiders, the Raiders ran four plays from their opponents’ one yard line; four times they were stopped. It is important to remember that the Oakland Raiders are an incompetent, awful, lazy football team, but the distinction between the NFL and the CFL is obvious. In the CFL, a play from the one yard line is successful nine out of ten times. When your team gets to the one yard line, you might as well stop watching, because nothing exciting is going to happen. In the NFL, every yard is contested, and as a result, it is exciting.
CFL games, I confess, do feel a lot faster. The reason for this has nothing to do with the actual play of the game, but with the rules with regard to the clock. In the CFL, teams have 27 seconds to run every offensive play; if you take any longer than that, your team is penalized for delay of game. In the NFL, teams have 40 seconds. Those thirteen seconds are never put to good use; the team just takes its sweet time lining up, and the game drags between downs. That’s why fans of the CFL complain about the pace of the game – it has nothing to do with the number of running plays.
Miscellaneous rules:
• In the NFL, a receiver has to control the ball with both feet still in bounds. It’s very exciting to see a player running full speed catch the ball, stop the momentum of his lower body to tap both feet inside the boundary marker, and then smash uncontrollably into some poor photographer. In the CFL, one foot is good enough. Why is this? The field’s wider! They should have plenty of space to get both feet down. But as anyone who has watched the NFL knows, it is really hard to get both feet down in bounds, and I guess our boys aren’t up to it. Advantage: NFL
• In the NFL, the uprights are at the back of the endzone, so the kicker has to kick the ball further to score a field goal, making field goals more difficult. (Of course, the kickers are better in the NFL, so this is a bit of a wash: Sean Fleming’s effective range is about 20 yards. Yes, he got better toward the end of the season.) The downside of moving the uprights to the back of the endzone is that you never see an NFL player tracking the ball across the sky, arms outstretched, running full speed into a huge steel obstacle in the middle of the field. That happens in the CFL. Advantage: CFL
• The Canadian field is wider. This gives the offense more room to work: an obvious advantage. The Canadian field is also longer, meaning the offense has to move the ball further to score: an obvious disadvantage. I have not undertaken any sort of a statistical analysis, but it seems to me that NFL scores are comparable to those in the CFL. No advantage.
• The CFL has all sorts of wacky rules about kicking. I’ve been a fan for years, and I still don’t understand them very well. It is very unpredictable. I once saw a game where one team tried a field goal, and their opposition kicked the ball back out, so we kicked the ball back in, and they kicked the ball back out, through a crowd. And that was the end of the game. It’s like a bizarre, unpredictable circus, and you never really get the hang of it. Advantage: CFL
Washington over TAMPA BAY (-2.5)
Jacksonville over NEW ENGLAND (-8)
CINCINATTI over Pittsburgh (-3)
Carolina over NEW YORK GIANTS (-2.5)
I have a confession to make, a confession that is too shameful to speak anywhere but into the anonymity of the Internet: I like American football better. I have for some time now. I remember when it began. I was watching the St. Louis Rams in around 1999. Kurt Warner dropped back to pass, but several very large gentleman, intent on doing him harm, rushed toward him. Sensibly, he ran away toward the right sideline. As he ran to his right, he threw the ball (across his body, against his momentum) toward the left corner of the endzone. The ball travelled sixty yards in the air, and came down in the arms of a receiver. The receiver was ‘double covered’ (that is, two highly skilled players were being paid vast sums of money to prevent the catch) but the ball went over the head of the short cover man, and under the arms of the deep man. The receiver caught the ball without breaking stride, and stepped across the goal line for a touchdown.
Of course, it is impossible to recreate the drama of this play in written prose. I just want to stress, the quarterback was running to his right, and threw to his leftt. The ball was thrown at a moving target, a space about the size of a basketball hoop, sixty yards away. (Sixty yards is further than most athletes can kick a football.) I had seen a lot of football. I had never seen anything like that play before.
That moment was a reinforcement of an obvious truth that had lurked for years in the recesses of my mind: the players in the NFL are better. They are faster, they are stronger, they make better decisions. The athletes in the CFL are very good, but they are not good enough to play in the NFL; that is why they play in the CFL. If you want to see someone run into the uprights, or catch an interception after the ball bounced off of the intended receiver’s helmet, the CFL is your game. If you want to watch the best athletes play football at its highest level, you need to watch the NFL. If you want to watch almost inhuman feats of athleticism by top tier American athletes, you will enjoy the NFL. If you want to watch second tier American athletes and a Canadian place kicker, the CFL is a perfect fit.
Some will protest, “But the NFL game is too slow! They run the ball too much!” In the CFL, teams are given only three downs to gain the ten yards needed for a first down. In the NFL, teams are given four downs. It is easy to see that a slow, plodding offense will be more successful in the NFL than in the CFL. What people who make this argument seem to forget is that in the CFL, the defense has to line up a yard away from the line of scrimmage. In the NFL, to gain a yard, you need to run through the defense. In the CFL, you get a whole yard of empty space to gather momentum, so running against a CFL defense is much easier. Because the defense has to line up a yard away from the ball, the offense has the privelege of an uncontested yard on every down. If you take those three yards away, the CFL team has to gain 7 contested yards over the course of three downs, where the NFL team has to gain 10 contested yards over the course of four downs – on average, the CFL game favours a slow, plodding offense!
The neutral zone is most obvious in short yardage situations. In the CFL, when a team faces third down with a yard to go, they will always go for it, and almost always get it: there is no one to run through to get the requiste yards, so all you have to do is not fall over and you are going to get your first down. In the NFL, to gain a yard you have to run through the defense, so in every fourth down situation, every goal-line stand, there is a chance that your team will be unsuccessful. In the recent NFL game between the New York Giants and the Oakland Raiders, the Raiders ran four plays from their opponents’ one yard line; four times they were stopped. It is important to remember that the Oakland Raiders are an incompetent, awful, lazy football team, but the distinction between the NFL and the CFL is obvious. In the CFL, a play from the one yard line is successful nine out of ten times. When your team gets to the one yard line, you might as well stop watching, because nothing exciting is going to happen. In the NFL, every yard is contested, and as a result, it is exciting.
CFL games, I confess, do feel a lot faster. The reason for this has nothing to do with the actual play of the game, but with the rules with regard to the clock. In the CFL, teams have 27 seconds to run every offensive play; if you take any longer than that, your team is penalized for delay of game. In the NFL, teams have 40 seconds. Those thirteen seconds are never put to good use; the team just takes its sweet time lining up, and the game drags between downs. That’s why fans of the CFL complain about the pace of the game – it has nothing to do with the number of running plays.
Miscellaneous rules:
• In the NFL, a receiver has to control the ball with both feet still in bounds. It’s very exciting to see a player running full speed catch the ball, stop the momentum of his lower body to tap both feet inside the boundary marker, and then smash uncontrollably into some poor photographer. In the CFL, one foot is good enough. Why is this? The field’s wider! They should have plenty of space to get both feet down. But as anyone who has watched the NFL knows, it is really hard to get both feet down in bounds, and I guess our boys aren’t up to it. Advantage: NFL
• In the NFL, the uprights are at the back of the endzone, so the kicker has to kick the ball further to score a field goal, making field goals more difficult. (Of course, the kickers are better in the NFL, so this is a bit of a wash: Sean Fleming’s effective range is about 20 yards. Yes, he got better toward the end of the season.) The downside of moving the uprights to the back of the endzone is that you never see an NFL player tracking the ball across the sky, arms outstretched, running full speed into a huge steel obstacle in the middle of the field. That happens in the CFL. Advantage: CFL
• The Canadian field is wider. This gives the offense more room to work: an obvious advantage. The Canadian field is also longer, meaning the offense has to move the ball further to score: an obvious disadvantage. I have not undertaken any sort of a statistical analysis, but it seems to me that NFL scores are comparable to those in the CFL. No advantage.
• The CFL has all sorts of wacky rules about kicking. I’ve been a fan for years, and I still don’t understand them very well. It is very unpredictable. I once saw a game where one team tried a field goal, and their opposition kicked the ball back out, so we kicked the ball back in, and they kicked the ball back out, through a crowd. And that was the end of the game. It’s like a bizarre, unpredictable circus, and you never really get the hang of it. Advantage: CFL
Washington over TAMPA BAY (-2.5)
Jacksonville over NEW ENGLAND (-8)
CINCINATTI over Pittsburgh (-3)
Carolina over NEW YORK GIANTS (-2.5)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)